Bob, we have GOT to get together over dinner sometime and somewhere. I
have no idea when our paths (literally and quite probably virtually on
APRS) will path, but I'm looking forward to the day that we can meet and
talk. Maybe some year I'll be able to spring free time and travel to
get to Dayton, or maybe sometime I'll be traveling through your home
stomping grounds (but I'd probably have the YL with me in that case),
but I'll keep my eyes open for the opportunity.
I also have only admiration for UI-View and Roger's achievement and can
only hope that I can see the same longevity happen to APRSISCE/32. But,
being in the "upstart" position, I'm really sensitive to doing anything
to negate UI-View's utility and/or effectiveness until I've
independently enticed at least <InsertArbitrarilyLargePercentage> of the
APRS client share over some extended period of time. Backward
compatibility is king to me in my day job and I'm striving for the same
in the APRS specs.
Now, when the UI-View users themselves have made the choice to move to a
new client, the possibilities begin to open up much better. But the
exercise to keep UI-View functional will continue to be necessary, but
the functionality target will be the D7/700/72/710s and VX-8/FTM-350s
that are still in active use by that time.
But in the meantime, I'm hoping to keep all of the near-term future
extensions to APRS compatible across the board so as to not breed any
ill-will in the UI-View user base (2,783 active in the past 2 hours vs
267 xastir and 252 APRSISCE/32). Some of my ideas are actually
constrained by the installed base of javAPRSsrv APRS-IS servers as well
(like an inability to filter on message recipient), so I'm content
wedging my way between the proverbial rocks and hard places.
Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32
PS. Oh, and on the }AA Reply-Acks on non-sequenced messages, I'm
realizing that any new implementation can attach that ONLY when sending
messages to already-known-to-be Reply-Ack capable clients. Those
particular clients, I believe, are still in active development and can
(hopefully) be extended quickly to suppress the }AA at the END of a
message from the user's view. If we don't transmit them to
non-Reply-Ack-capable recipients (and err on the side of not sending
it), then hopefully no one will ever actually SEE the "free" Reply-Ack
from a non-sequenced Auto-Response (or AVRS response or ANSRVR response
or similar).
On 11/6/2011 7:24 PM, Bob Bruninga wrote:
> My apologies too.
>> I was over sensitive. It is sunday, and with all the honeydoos and I was feeling a little overwhelmed.
>> For 3 years now, I'm supposed to rebuild our 90 year old garage that is falling down with rot and it hangs over my head for years. Contractors all say to bulldoze it and build new. But I cannot bring myself to do it. New construction would not match the old house and I hate paying all that $$$. I can shore up the foundation mywelf, and stabliize it... but it is just one of those things it is hard to get around to doing...
>> In the mean time, it hangs over my head and prevnts me from getting anythign else done either, because it must be first priority..
>> I really appreciate this new APRSISCE since it will finally give us a modern version of APRS and since we have a motivated author, it will be refined to perfection and we can finally move forward with some of the many ideas in APRS1.2
>> Nothing negative about UIview, but sinec it cannot be updated, we have not been able to move on with many of the APRS1.2 proposals until there is an alternative to UIview that can be updated.
>> I'm hoping the APRSISCE will fullfill that hope.
>> I have enjoyed Lynns nitpicking about the spec over the last year or so, because it his indepth review of every aspect of the spec that helps us find the things that need fixing and updating...
>> Bob, WB4APR
>> ---- Original message ----
>> Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 17:15:25 -0500
>> From: aprssig-bounces at tapr.org (on behalf of "Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)"<ldeffenb at homeside.to>)
>> Subject: Re: [aprssig] Reply-Ack Spec vs }AA
>> To: TAPR APRS Mailing List<aprssig at tapr.org>
>>>> I'll claim some responsibility for that and extend
>> my public apologies. On re-reading my earlier
>> response, it DID sound like I was taking the
>> discussion to a personal level, especially when
>> taken in conjunction with some earlier posts by me
>> on the AA: topic.
>>>> It is NOT my intention to criticize any
>> personalities, nor persons in any of my posts, and
>> Bob, you have my sincerest apology that my post did
>> sound like it was. Please accept that apology and
>> we can get back to the business of improving my (and
>> other's as well) understanding of all that has gone
>> before as well as extending that prior art to
>> accommodate new ideas.
>>>> Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows
>> Mobile and Win32
>>>> On 11/6/2011 1:40 PM, Jim Alles wrote:
>>>> Bob,
>>>> I will be emailing you privately.
>>>> From my personal experience, this forum is not the
>> place for personal criticsm.
>>>> Jim Alles KB3TBX
>>>>>> I wish that didn't sound so much like an attack
>> or a complaint. I try very *very* hard to
>> document EVERY aspect and nuance of APRS
>> whenever something comes up that was not clear,
>> or was omitted from the original spec. These
>> last few things you have complained about were
>> both attempts on my part to document these
>> nuances. It seems unfair to complain about
>> undocumented nuances and then complain when we
>> attempt to fix the documentation to accomodate
>> it.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>> aprssig mailing list
>>aprssig at tapr.org>>https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig>> ________________
>> _______________________________________________
>> aprssig mailing list
>>aprssig at tapr.org>>https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
>aprssig at tapr.org>https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig>